Amendment of value quorum creates confusion in court litigation processes

Considering increasing talks about amending the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law, specifically with regard to the issue of raising the value quorum for civil and commercial cases before the courts, the issue of presenting disputes to the Supreme Courts, has become different from what it is now, after the value quorum for lawsuits has been raised to 20,000 dinars instead of 5,000 dinars as is the case in the current text.

Such an amendment has several consequences that must be considered, which are as follows:

FIRST – The rulings issued by the Criminal Court in the amount of 20,000 dinars will be “final” rulings, and if the appeal is accepted, it will be before the Partial Appeal Court.
SECOND – Disputes will not be brought before the Supreme Courts of the Court of Appeal and Cassation, except for requests whose value exceeds 20,000 dinars.
THIRD – The legislative amendment regarding raising the value quorum will result in an increase in the consideration and adjudication of lawsuits before the General Court, after reducing the number of lawsuits that were used to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
FOURTH – Commercial and civil disputes that are within the limits of 20,000 dinars; will lose the existence of a Supreme Court that sets principles regarding them, weighs disputes, and resolves them in the event that judgments contain errors that affect their integrity.

Sentence of Notes

In light of the results that may arise from the issue of raising the value of lawsuits from 5,000 dinars, as is the case currently, to an amount of 20,000 dinars, there are a number of observations raised by these results that must be addressed, and they are as follows:

The First Matter – is about presenting disputes and lawsuits that will be within the limits of 20,000 dinars, will cause pressure on the work system in the General Court, whether the administrative system of human cadres working to serve lawsuits or the judicial system, which is made up of the honorable judges in the General Court.

Such administrative and judicial systems cannot bear the heavy burdens that will result from raising the value quorum.

If we say that the administrative system can increase the number of its members, which is something that requires training and qualification, and may be difficult to achieve administratively, it is something that is difficult to achieve, and different from the judicial system, which cannot absorb the volume of work, as long as it is beyond its technical capacity.

In addition, the age of joining the judiciary for judges who come from the Public Prosecution is technically, barely sufficient to assume the tasks of participating in adjudicating lawsuits, as most are transferred to the judiciary after working in the Public Prosecution, for a period not exceeding five years.

The Second Matter – is about raising the quorum, in light of the small number of judges at the level of court agents and advisors in the General Court, to preside over sessions and relying on judges who have recently joined the judiciary.

This will affect the quality of judicial rulings and the inadequacy of rulings in responding to substantive pleas and requests, given the volume and pressures of work that the circuits in the General Court will face.

Especially the partial appeal circuits formed of three judges, which will issue their rulings in full, while the circuits of the partial court will be formed of only one judge, which will make the matter of the finality of rulings an imminent issue that may harm the rights of litigants as a result of this amendment.

The Third Matter – that the amendment will arrange is not presenting disputes to the Supreme Courts of the Court of Appeal and Cassation, even though they are high financial claims estimated at 20,000 dinars, which may be the largest amount that the litigant possesses, and another litigant may not be able to afford it.

How can he present his dispute to a partial court, whose ruling may be subject to invalidity, and cannot be presented to the Supreme Courts for comment or correction?

The practical reality today has revealed the issuance of hundreds of rulings by the Court of Cassation annually, which are the highest levels of appeal that end in the cancellation of the rulings of the Supreme Courts of Appeal, due to the defects and errors in the law that marred those rulings.

How can this be the case when the Supreme Judiciary is deprived of monitoring claims of this value, and has no role in correcting the error that may be in the rulings issued regarding them?

This also deprives the Supreme Judiciary of setting principles and rules on those disputes and resolving them, which makes them traditional and stereotypical lawsuits, despite the enormity of the amounts stipulated in them.

Manipulation Door

This amendment will also open the door to manipulation in adding requests to futile lawsuits, including requests to appoint an expert to escape the issue of the value quorum, which may be a burden on litigants and on the judicial work system in the Administrative Court of the General Court.

In addition, the issue of raising the value quorum, although it will reduce the door to appeals before the Courts of Appeal and Cassation, will create many of the negative factors previously mentioned, and will affect the right to litigation and quality of rulings.

Therefore, it is not possible to investigate whether the issue of accumulating appeals in the Court of Cassation, for example, will create a problem of poor quality rulings and pressure on the work system in the judiciary of the General Court by raising the value quorum.

450 Judges

It is not lost on the mind that raising the quorum precedes raising the number of Judges and Advisors in the General Court, as it is not possible, as previously mentioned, for 450 Judges in the General Court to adjudicate more than one and a half million lawsuits, which are likely to increase this year.

Also to prepare lawsuits due to assigning rental cases to the judges of the General Court through partial appeal lawsuits, after the cancellation of the jurisdiction to consider them from the High Court of Appeal.

Therefore, arranging the litigation conditions and the quorum must be viewed according to other comprehensive rules related to the readiness of the courts and judicial bodies and the impact of this judicial transformation on the quality of rulings.

Session Management

In light of the lack of a sufficient number of judges at the level of court agents or advisors in the general court who are originally in charge of presiding over sessions, in addition to the fact that it is not possible to rely on those who have recently joined the judiciary after completing their work in the public prosecution.

As, they are in the process of technical and professional qualification for judicial work, and such qualification allows them to manage sessions after a period of no less than 3 years of judicial work, then increasing the number of judges through the public prosecution to the general court, will not solve the problem because they are judges who are qualified to participate in issuing rulings and not in managing sessions formed judicially, after joining the judiciary.

This is the Solution

The solution is to raise the value quorum in a way that is serious about litigation, and not as a restriction on the right to litigation.

Such seriousness is a slight increase in the value quorum, which is currently estimated at 5,000 dinars.

This does not prevent raising it to the limits of 7,500 dinars or even to the limits of 10,000 dinars, taking into account the financial value by which the value quorum for lawsuits was raised about 40 years ago. However, it cannot be three times the amount currently set.